This is why they changed gun laws in California
Posted by tootyfruitysummerlov@reddit | Firearms | View on Reddit | 336 comments
Posted by tootyfruitysummerlov@reddit | Firearms | View on Reddit | 336 comments
TheGreatSockMan@reddit
I think it’s funny that the (accurate argument) that something is private property is coming from a Marxist sub
PisakasSukt@reddit
Marxists don't oppose private property in the sense that you can't own your own home or land, they oppose it in the sense you can't own something like a factory that relies on the labor of others.
Your house is yours, your toothbrush is yours, the labor of others is not. This isn't difficult to grasp. You have the fucking audacity to call them uninformed while posting this shit? Jesus Christ I hate that the majority of my fellow gun owners are genuinely fucking stupid.
Key-Effort963@reddit
They're just anti-Marxist and repeat what republivan and NRA talking points. Ignore them. The US is on a steady decline anyway.
Abazaba_23@reddit
Genuinely curious because I am uninformed:
Wheres the line between owning a home or land (marx-approved) and owning a factory (disapproved) drawn?
Say you own a house (acceptable), where you grow corn, and you can turn that corn into tortillas. Now you offer something of value to someone to come to your house and turn that corn into tortillas.... Isn't that the same as owning a factory, owning materials, and hiring a workforce to provide labor?
The worker agrees to providing their labor for something they value, i.e. currency or food or a piece of that property (housing), or whatever. And now we've arrived at capitalism.
If you own a (marx-approved) home where you can grow corn, but keep it to yourself, can it be seized from you? If so, then it doesn't sound like you own it... And yes I know property rights in the USA are not absolute today either.
Sorry for my base example but I'm trying to wrap my head around your statement.
OrganizationFunny153@reddit
The difference is in where your income is coming from:
Growing corn on your land is making money from your own labor. There is no shareholder passively making money because they have money, all profits from the work go directly to the worker. Similarly, all power is with the worker: they set their own hours, are free to prioritize safe working conditions, etc.
Owning a factory is making money from someone else's labor. The shareholders that own the factory business don't do any work or provide any value to society, they merely profit from everyone else's work because they have more money. And the incentives are to sacrifice worker pay, safety, etc, so that even more money and power are given to the owner. The result is an entire parasite class that provides nothing of value to society but controls most of its wealth and power.
Somewhere in the middle is the small business where the owner may hire an employee to help but the owner remains an active worker, not just a passive owner collecting wealth from their "investment". Stalinists reject this, less extreme Marxists allow for this kind of cooperative business to exist outside of state control.
Abazaba_23@reddit
And when the business owner, who still contributes his labor, has a surplus of wealth, and exchanges that wealth for a small portion of anothers future wealth (invests in another business and becones a shareholder), he now becomes a member of the parasite class...?
OrganizationFunny153@reddit
Not quite. The investment is the same behavior as the parasite class but investing $100 in the stock market doesn't make you a full member of the parasite class. The parasite class wants you to think you have something in common with them and benefit from the same policies but you don't get to jump to the higher class until you're making your living from being a parasite like Musk, Bezos, etc. Marxism is fundamentally about class conflict, not occasional small-scale investments by individuals.
(And I'm not saying Marxism has the correct answer here, just what answer it offers.)
Abazaba_23@reddit
So in this example, say the business owner is successful enough to stop laboring, and chooses to invest in other businesses for a share of the profits in a manner that sustains them, they are now a member of the parasite class?
What about this business owners child, who is set for life in this example, now they are potentially a member of the parasite class as well?
How else do you prevent that other than by forcibly seizing the business owner's property (wealth)?
Belkan-Federation95@reddit
You're describing the NEP/New Economic Policy. That's closer to Distributism than Communism. Lenin was using it because he believed that the USSR couldn't support total Socialism yet, which is what Stalinists rejected.
OrganizationFunny153@reddit
Pretty much. The exact nuances of which branch of Marxism/communism/etc has which position on the secondary issues can be argued but the unifying thing about all of the various branches is opposition to capitalism. And a small farm business is not capitalism.
VHDamien@reddit
Honestly, it depends on the flavor of communism that the group subscribes to. In some varieties your home is personal property and you own it. In others it's group property that is lent out for you to live in.
thecftbl@reddit
You mean Marxism isn't when the government does something?
PisakasSukt@reddit
Aw damn, got me. Marxism is when the government does stuff and the more stuff it does the more Marxister it its.
But it is frustrating when other users here don't actually understand what they're criticizing. They don't get that they're criticizing it because they were told to.
thecftbl@reddit
There is a sadly hilarious amount of people in here that don't realize Reagan was the one who passed these laws.
603rdMtnDivision@reddit
Reagan and who else?
thecftbl@reddit
His entire cabinet...
603rdMtnDivision@reddit
Lol and almost everyone else with that bipartisan support. Don't get me wrong I think he's an asshole for it and many other reasons but when I see this brought up as some kind of dunk I just think it's funny people skip over exactly how it got to his desk to shit on him alone for it.
thecftbl@reddit
Reagan started this in California without the need for congressional support. His reasons for doing so were exactly like the video says where he only cares about disarming the Black Panthers. Subsequent to his massive restrictions passed in California, he had the Brady Bill which had bipartisan support. The dunk is how Reagan is cited as the Republican Messiah and yet he was the creator of modern gun control.
603rdMtnDivision@reddit
And also how Republicans are racist, correct? This specific example is always used to drive that point home too and I just find it ironic that people skip over everything like I said before and how those bills came about and who voted in favor of them just to shit on one person.
Just seems stupid to me that's all.
thecftbl@reddit
Not Republicans as a whole but Reagan definitely was a racist. What you are doing is trying to deflect culpability of Reagan in gun control which is just silly. The fact of the matter is that Reagan undeniably was the most anti 2A president since FDR and was responsible for the modern incarnation of gun control. Yes he has bipartisan support, but the fact is that he was the one spearheading this legislation.
603rdMtnDivision@reddit
I'm not deflecting anything so you can miss me with that bullshit. The only ones I see trying to deflect anything are the morons who just blame him when there's plenty more to go around but that requires effort on their part so I can see where it all falls apart.
Yeah, I'm totally trying to deflect blame by making sure everyone involved should get a ration of shit and not the losers in this who skip over 75% of how that bill got there so they can have their gotcha moment.
Verum14@reddit
everyone in here is shitting in reagan equally wdym?
thecftbl@reddit
You mean like the person that said "which party was in control at the time?" Or the dude that is saying "it was bipartisan and everyone tries to blame Reagan." There is fortunately people calling him out, but a sad number of people trying to excuse him as well.
Verum14@reddit
idk i read the second one as “don’t forget about the others who wronged us” rather than “reagan did nothing wrong”. could mean either i suppose
the first one sounded like failed baiting by someone (wrongly) thinking we adore reagan or something and i ignored it, lol
backwards_yoda@reddit
And if I use the oven in my home to bake cookies that I sell is it then private property? What if I pay my neighbor a portion of my profits to help me bake cookies?
518nomad@reddit
“They oppose (private property) in the sense that you can’t own something like a factory that relies on the labor of others.”
Like a munitions factory that makes small arms that the Marxists say would be personal property. So the factory is owned by the commune, with all of the dysfunction that would entail. That isn’t a persuasive argument for Marxism. There’s a lot wrong with the twisted, corporatist bastardization of markets that we currently have in the Western world, but blowing all that up and hoping that this time Marxism will work doesn’t strike me as an appealing solution. Capital markets have far too many benefits; the key is to erase the state so that those benefits flow to workers as well as to capitalists (mostly by increasing the further democratization of capital). Destroying the capital markets will only send us back to subsistence standards of living as all who have toyed with Marxism have learned the hard way.
nukey18mon@reddit
Where do you draw the line then? If any private property is seized, then no private property is safe. All it takes is the government redefining what they can legally steal from you.
The only misinformed one is you for defending an ideology that has failed and killed thousands/millions every single time it was tried.
PisakasSukt@reddit
You're still parroting propaganda. The "government" under Communism is us. The soldiers and police are still people and have an obligation to resist which they, currently, don't do. If the government goes to steal someone's home we utilize gun rights (i.e 2nd Amendment) to prevent them from doing so - though they themselves are the people and should also be doing it. In a system where they didn't have to worry about paying bills they'd be more inclined to do so.
Communism hasn't killed that much people, you probably believe North Koreans believe all sorts of weird shit or that Kim Jong-Un kills people with dogs and shit unironically without critically examining your own beliefs and where they come from.
nukey18mon@reddit
You are parroting propaganda. No government can be truly representative of the people. It’s impossible, people inevitably have conflicting views, and one must prevail. So any of the “we are the government” stuff is complete nonsense.
dirtysock47@reddit
Which is why communist regimes have always genocided anyone with opposing views of the regime.
dirtysock47@reddit
Hah, it's funny that you believe that.
No, but you'll probably make up some BS about "climate change" to justify taking my house.
Friendly_Deathknight@reddit
The problem is that I haven’t met many who know the difference between Marx and Kropotkin, and when pressed about what to do about dissenters, it always deconstructs into “send the tanks to Hungary,” and “just kill the Hmong.” You can’t have socialism on a macro-economic scale without turning into a tankie.
The movie “Free State of Jones,” is a good representation of this. How many poor farmers get pushed into fighting another man’s war before they finally said “fuck the plantation owners?” After they’re successful, what do they do when the union shows up and sets things right back the way they were?
farson135@reddit
You mean like how the government of the US is by and for the people?
You dismiss others as only understanding propaganda, but you're applying a utopian ideal to what you act like is a serious political stance.
How convenient.
fecalfury@reddit
"Communism hasn't killed that much people"
The Holodomor
Stalinist Purges + Gulags
The Great Leap Forward
The Cultural Revolution
Cambodian Genocide
Ethiopian Red Terror
Vietnam Land Reform and Reeducation
Only 60-120 million plus or minus several million.
"A factory steals labor", but the state is obviously entitled to the work of the Kulaks in the Gulags or the Uighurs in Xinjiang so it's totally not exploitation of slaves. Class enemies are clearly not human.
VHDamien@reddit
Technically, and largely dependent upon the branch of communism adhered to, a house could be personal property owned by the citizen and his/her family or a temporary lending from the community.
dirtysock47@reddit
What if they deem my house to be "too big"? What then?
BigBlackAss@reddit
By that logic I don't own anything that isn't the result of my labor even if I paid for it...
Iloveclouds9436@reddit
Virtually no one preaching socialist ideals thinks an average person's personal belongings are unacceptable. Marxist's largely preach against resource hoarding. It's a fantasy to believe that socialists want to own literally nothing when their main goal is more equal distribution of things to everyone.
unseatedjvta@reddit
Marxism is about rage and control, not making sense
They just want to hate because it's easier than understanding, they just pretend to be the good guys because "muh minorities" and "muh democracy" as if socialism was a literal dictatorship
It's just kids pretending to be the saviors of a world they don't understand
Dependent-Edge-5713@reddit
OP is still correct.
kassus-deschain138@reddit
I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice this.
TheGreatSockMan@reddit
We are lucky they are so stupid
j4_jjjj@reddit
Private property always refers to corporations, not private citizens and the property they own.
Funny you should be so sure you're right that youd call me stupid.
Id rather exchange ideas with you than call you names, because ultimately I believe we should all own guns and that we have common ground on the 2A.
tech_prof@reddit
It's so interesting how all of these people would so readily throw away the "share everything" ideals if they made it rich themselves.
OffbrandFiberCapsule@reddit
It's entirely reasonable for them to hold a belief about the world while also acknowledging how that world is not reality. It's pragmatic and most of us do it everyday rather than sticking purely to the ways in which we believe the world should operate.
Dubaku@reddit
There's participating in capitalism because you have no other choice and then there's embracing it. No one is saying that they should just go homeless they're pointing out that it's funny they chose to make money off of the profits of corporations that exploit workers. You would think they could find a way to live that is at least a little more in line with their world view. It's like a vegan that works at a slaughter house.
PIHWLOOC@reddit
Just take the BLM founder, for example.
Dubaku@reddit
Hasan Piker too.
Mysterious_Soup_4937@reddit
"Guys, you gotta live in poverty otherwise you're just faking it lmao" -Karl Marx
Dubaku@reddit
Sick strawman bro.
j4_jjjj@reddit
Do you think I live somewhere outside of capitalism? What would you have me do?
Why are you resorting to attacks?
tech_prof@reddit
I'd have you put your money where your mouth is.
Coward.
Automatic_Mammoth684@reddit
are you trying to incite violence??
tech_prof@reddit
No. Literally how did you get that?
Automatic_Mammoth684@reddit
How else would someone put their money where their mouth is to fight against capitalism? Shop at the chain of communist stores? There’s no realistic way to “put your money where your mouth is” when you’re trying to abolish corporate ownership of property. You’d have to attack the corporations and steal their property..
sobrietyincorporated@reddit
Or, you know, just tax them at 38% like during the Reconstruction instead of... (looks at notes)... less than what you tax a single filer.
Automatic_Mammoth684@reddit
and how does one individual communist put that tax rate into effect? this person is telling ONE INDIVIDUAL to do something about capitalism, one individual is not going to be reforming the fucking tax code, dude.
sobrietyincorporated@reddit
Wtf do you mean one person? Its been suggested constantly by every non-cuck economist.
Get rid of the SS cap, tax all income driven from borrowed assets, and implement a progressive tax structure. The shit every person has said to do since 1982.
Or just keep making excuses for weird oligarchy worship.
Automatic_Mammoth684@reddit
the person I was replying to was telling ONE PERSON to put their money where their mouth is, this conversation is entirely about what one individual can do.
No one individual can do any of those things by "putting their money where their mouth is"
I support a 100% tax rate over like $250k a year dude, fuck off with this weird "oligarch worship" nonsense.
tech_prof@reddit
Whoa who said anything about attacking anyone, wtf?
Why are you trying to incite violence?
Automatic_Mammoth684@reddit
Violence is the only way to confront capitalism. You’re telling someone to “put their money where their mouth is” in their fight against capitalism as if there is a commit state they can move to.
I am only referring to things you have said.
Neither-Following-32@reddit
Easy there, comrade.
Automatic_Mammoth684@reddit
im not a communist, I have a lot invested in the stock market. I'm just saying if you want to fight capitalism, you need to Luigi it, corporations don't have laws that govern them.
I'm making decent money, I'm fine. I don't need to own any of the means of productions, I'm good.
Neither-Following-32@reddit
I mean they literally do have laws that govern them though, that's why we don't have things like child labor. They just are either insufficient or gamed. That's not an indictment of "capitalism", that's an indictment of corruption; the two aren't synonymous.
Automatic_Mammoth684@reddit
No they’re quite intertwined, especially since corporations are people now and can lobby the government directly.
Neither-Following-32@reddit
Sure. All of that's true, but that's also not what you said before.
I'm definitely not against being critical of our system and the way things are, but I think you're painting with too broad of a brush if you start characterizing it as the only form capitalism can take, or talking about how only violence is effective in fighting its worst aspects.
tech_prof@reddit
Maybe it means don't complain about capitalism and then play the stock market lmao
Why are you disagreeing with me? Are all of you commies in favor of stock brokers now?
Automatic_Mammoth684@reddit
I’m not a communist man, you need to chill.
The dude lives in a capitalist society. He got a job. Tough shit dude, he has bills to pay. Doesn’t mean he can’t have personal values.
tech_prof@reddit
Gaslighting when you run out of points to make is peak communist behavior
Automatic_Mammoth684@reddit
No one is trying to make you question reality? The fuck are you talking about dude.
“Gaslighting is a psychological manipulation technique that involves making someone question their reality, perceptions, or memory. The goal is to confuse the victim into doubting their thoughts, values, and behaviors. Gaslighting is often used by narcissists to gain control over their target.“
Literally none is that is happening anywhere in this thread, but the argument could be made that you trying to make me think I am unknowingly manipulating you is gaslighting because we both know I have done nothing to make you question your reality, memory or anything like that.
I’m not saying you aren’t crazy, you really do seem crazy. I’m just not trying to gaslight you. It’s just straight up not happening, in objective reality.
j4_jjjj@reddit
Namecalling? Rad.
What does "put your money where your mouth is" even mean? Communism is about how corporations and government work, Socialism is the stepping stone to get there.
Socialism just means "the workers own the means of production" or in other words, the employees get all the profits instead of a handful of execs.
I wonder what youd have me do to "put my money where my mouth is"
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
Marxist Logic:
thinkingbear@reddit
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
I agree, "Marxist Logic" is an oxymoron. Marxists are the flat earthers of economics.
j4_jjjj@reddit
Which communist States have ever gotten rid of money? Thats a core tenet
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
Oh and now we've moved on to
Predictable, and pathetic.
Ok then since "Real Capitalism" requires the total abolishment of all restrictions on commerce, including taxes and trade laws, "Real Capitalism" has never been tried either, and all your criticism is invalid.
Or we can not play this stupid game and live in the real world.
Neither-Following-32@reddit
Well said.
j4_jjjj@reddit
How did you come away with that?
Private property according to Marx theory, refers to land, buidlings,machinery,etc that corporations own. Not your toothbrush or your house or your gallon of milk in the fridge.
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
Easily: I build a lathe. That is my property. Regardless of whether you think it's "machinery" it does not magically become yours because you want it.
Marxists are fucking. A bunch of lazy leeches who contribute nothing of value to society, who follow the teaching of... a lazy leech who contributed nothing of value to society.
His "theories" do not work in the real world. When your theory is incompatible with practical reality, it means your theory is bad.
j4_jjjj@reddit
Why do you think anyone wants your lathes though?
Keep attacking me tho, makes me feel good.
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
You did, you economic flat earther.
Or does it magically make a difference whether I personally own 5 lathes, or whether "my company" owns them? Please enlighten me as to at which point your theft of my property is magically justified (it's not)
j4_jjjj@reddit
Everything revolves around stealing with your arguments, but why do you think anyone wants your 5 lathes?
In our current system, wage theft is the number one form of theft by a huge margin. Would you like to discuss ways to stop that?
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
Because that's what you want to do. What else do you call seizing my property without my consent?
Then why do you want to seize (steal) my company property?
Sfisch91@reddit
Fucking based.
FIBSAFactor@reddit
1) Private citizens can own private property as well. The vast majority of private property in this country is owned by individuals, not corporations.
2) I have no ideas to exchange with you, because your ideas are disgusting, immoral, and have led to genocide and untold human privation every single time they were implemented in history. If any group should be excluded from the 2A should be Marxist/commie scum.
sobrietyincorporated@reddit
The failure of CCCP and the likes were not because of a system design flaw. It was a human error. But I do like how we are taking neoliberal reaganomics full circle to the same destination.
FIBSAFactor@reddit
It was a failure because the system design flaw. The flaw of not accounting for human error, which itself is actually just human nature. Obviously a system which concentrates power and means of production in the hands of the state, is going to be subject to the human error/evil Which presents when any human attains that much power. This has been demonstrated time and time again in history and with 100% predictability ends in a genocide / famine/ethnic cleansing.
Anyone advocating for that system at this point does not deserve free speech, 2A protections or even US citizenship. They honestly need to be rounded up in a commune in the middle of nowhere so they can live out their weird fantasy themselves without bothering the rest of us normal people.
SteveHamlin1@reddit
What happens when private citizens use their private property to sell goods and services to people who want to buy them?
What happens if private citizens use that money to hire other private citizens to help them make more goods and services to sell?
Minimum-Web-6902@reddit
Go far enough left and you get your guns back
jtj5002@reddit
They also seem to really enjoy the movie that co founder of the Black Panther called a load of shit.
Minimum-Web-6902@reddit
Got the sauce? I’d like to see that personally
sendgarlicpics@reddit
Private property as the gentleman in the video refers to is referred to as personal propertyin Marxism. Private property refers to the means of the production of wealth. He probably uses the liberal definition of private property because all but the most educated of pigs wouldn't know the distinction.
Peachy_Biscuits@reddit
There is absolutely no distinction between "private" and "personal" property except the arbitrary ego of a marxist
sendgarlicpics@reddit
Marxism makes the distinction. You can argue it's a confusing or poorly worded distinction, but the difference between the ability to own the means by which other people produce value (the thing that Marxists want to abolish) and the thing that I call mine because I have exchanged money or labour for it and I can use at my pleasure is absolutely a significant distinction.
Friendly_Deathknight@reddit
They’ll tell you they believe in personal property but not private. If asked they’ll say that difference is that “private” would include ownership of something beyond what you actually need.
dirtysock47@reddit
They'll tell you that, but they don't actually believe it.
Because to them, all anyone needs is a 200 square foot apartment, so anyone with a living quarters more than that (whether it's a suburban home or a mansion) will have their homes forcibly seized under a communist utopia.
NeoSapien65@reddit
Don't forget "but we have the mansion laying around from when we killed the rich dude that owned it, and I'm the smart guy who came up with all this, so I should get to live there."
Friendly_Deathknight@reddit
None of the shit works in the real world either, because it’s always hypothetical scenarios based on primitivist economic models, where aggressive adversary states don’t exist, and so everyone can live in a nationwide commune where people compost all day, and there are never any dissenters, or psyops intentionally trying to create Hmong or Hungary scenarios.
ZorbaTHut@reddit
"If everyone cooperated and greed no longer existed, this economic system would work perfectly!"
If everyone cooperated and greed no longer existed, you could build an entire economic system around meditating on the flight patterns of the migratory Oriental stork.
PacoBedejo@reddit
From each according to ~~what I need~~ their ability, to each according to ~~their~~ what say they need.
Tack_it@reddit
I encourage you to look up the difference between private property and personal property before you guffaw too hard.
Remarkable-Host405@reddit
marx was actually all for guns and violent reform. it's hilarious that the quote was attributed to reagan.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/reagan-arms-surrendered-guns-marx/
Party_Stack@reddit
“Except for the workers that don’t agree with me. Disarm and execute those workers.”
alexmikli@reddit
That's actually what the quote is about. He feared that after a revolution, opportunists would seize the guns of fellow revolutionaries and betray the revolution. He may have been onto something there, given history.
thereddaikon@reddit
Hey look, another Marxist willing to lie.
The quote is taken out of context. Marx did not believe in an individual right to bear arms. He believed in a collective right of the workers to violently overthrow the bourgeoisie.
tech_prof@reddit
Which is why, believe it or not, every single marxist/communist country got to keep their firearms.
Oh fuck. Wait a second.
Gyp2151@reddit
Marx would have disarmed everyone outside of his political party the second he came in to power.
TheGreatSockMan@reddit
I’m really confused how this relates to my comment
Remarkable-Host405@reddit
you mentioned marx on a post about firearm ownership posted in a karl marx subreddit (then reposted in a firearm subreddit). it's a little related. sure, not to the private property part.
TheGreatSockMan@reddit
Just a bit funny to me, see as if you go far enough left you get your guns back (but if you don’t give them back after that, you’ll be face down in a ditch)
k-spar@reddit
Far enough left is pure anarchism
518nomad@reddit
Anarcho-communism is as mythical as a unicorn. The prohibition on voluntary transactions to sell one’s labor to others requires the violence of a state to enforce. That Marxists call such (often mutually desirable) transactions “exploitative” doesn’t change the fact that violence is required and any gang that enforces the prohibition on behalf of the commune is a state in all but name.
Belkan-Federation95@reddit
That's why left vs right sucks.
TheGreatSockMan@reddit
I disagree
_Pew_Pew_2@reddit
Until you get lined up against a wall. Fuck Karl Marx and fuck Communism.
Brrrrrrrro@reddit
There's a huge difference between private and personal property.
Cosmohumanist@reddit
😂
snuffy_bodacious@reddit
Marxists are an odd, incoherent, bunch.
Alex23323@reddit
That’s very ironic…
nukey18mon@reddit
Yeah they should be on the side of the cops lol
TheGreatSockMan@reddit
Unironically would make more sense for commies
blueponies1@reddit
Yeah this is a badass video, but that was hilarious.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit
I'm pro-gun as anyone, but I'm just as much an anti-marxist.
The pro-gun (pro-liberty) community would be gravely mistaken to think the Commies are on our side.
PokeyDiesFirst@reddit
What exactly did you expect the BPP to do? Black families at the time had very little economic power. Very little capital to work with as opposed to middle-class white families. Black communities have been somewhat communal for hundreds of years. Food, clothes, resources were shared for a long time to keep the community afloat and to keep kids fed. The capitalist country they were struggling to find an identity in rejected them at every turn, to the extent that peacefully protesting for civil rights resulted in tear gas, batons, and police dogs being loosed on everyday folks who just wanted to find a place in this world.
Of course Marxism was going to seem the preferable solution, communism was popular in a lot of minority groups at the time simply because America wouldn't let them be. Before you go off slandering black communists, at least attempt to understand why they ended up settling on the ideology to begin with. It's not fully their fault, they were repeatedly, painfully reminded that they didn't belong here, and that the American dream wasn't for them.
unseatedjvta@reddit
Marxists aren't pro-gun
Never did, never will
Marxists (and leftists overall) are pro-control, they want to control you through their guns
Their talk on being pro-gun and pro-democracy is just BS, they hate anyone who is not them and won't stop until they are all that is left
Dubaku@reddit
They always post that one Marx quote "“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary” to try and show they're pro gun. Which sounds nice if you're not used to dealing with them, but you have to remember that when they say "workers" they mean communists. They don't want everyone to have guns, they want for just their people to have guns. And for all their talk about standing up for rights and fighting the bourgeoisie they still go along with every gun control law that gets passed.
TL:DR Just because they agree with you on this one thing doesn't make them your friend.
Cliffinati@reddit
Should we lose the civil war they want we wouldn't have to worry we'd already be dead.
The lefties who support gun rights are the first against the wall or gulaged in Alaska
Rare_Benefit9504@reddit
This is correct. A lot of people don't know this, but it is absolutely true.
whubbard@reddit
Yeah, because sadly most ranges people still feel more comfortable wearing an Obama is a Monkey shirt than a Pride shirt. It's changing, but given you still sometimes see racism here on Reddit on gun subs. The gun rights movement was very okay with disarming the black planthers.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit
I've been to the range countless times since Obama was elected in 2008, meeting thousands of strangers across several states.
I never once met someone wearing the Obama shirt you described.
Minimum-Web-6902@reddit
I was in the home of someone who called Michelle a monkey in front of me , while she was campaigning for Kamala. I’ve also heard it other times in my life.
snuffy_bodacious@reddit
This isn't hard to believe. With plenty of evidence at my disposal, Democrats are easily more racist than MAGA ever dreamed to be.
And, just to be clear, I'm not a Trumpster.
whubbard@reddit
I have, sadly, he thought we would laugh. Nobody did.
But as you can see below, we mocked a transgender person here, about as "liberal" as it gets for gun communities, and it was just a few years ago.
We still have things to work out as a gun community, and that's okay, we are moving in the right direction.
Hopeliesintheseruins@reddit
SRA is a thing.
Bourbon-neat-@reddit
SRA are a by and large a bunch of confused tankie wannabe tyrants
NeoSapien65@reddit
Socialism (Marxism, etc) is ultimately anathema to the individual right to keep and bear arms, so yes those spaces will always eventually reveal themselves as tankies/tyrants.
Hopeliesintheseruins@reddit
Sure buddy.
codifier@reddit
It's not a binary choice. How about people be free to wear whatever they like and we should ignore them if they're assholes? I don't have to wear a pride shirt to leave people of different sexual orientations alone to enjoy their rights.
Personally, I like people openly wearing their assholery, making it easy to spot and avoid.
whubbard@reddit
Yeah, but when you wear an ANTI someone shirt, think that person being mocked wants to show up? You really want to shoot next to a guy wearing a racist shirt if you are black?
codifier@reddit
I couldn't give a fuck even if they are wearing a t-shirt with my face on it saying asshole with a big arrow. It's called thick skin and knowing assholes are gonna be assholes.
Freedom is dangerous.
singlemale4cats@reddit
Very courageous and brave stance for someone who is never going to be put in that position.
codifier@reddit
You have no clue who I am or what positions I have been in.
Saying that because you presume I am white?
singlemale4cats@reddit
Yep. White, straight, areligious, or some flavor of Christianity. People ticking all those boxes are the first to tell everyone else they need to get over it because they're never the target.
whubbard@reddit
Here are photos of him holding a rifle, that he posted. Sure as shit ain't black and looks pretty pasty to me.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/29iqfn/no_crappy_russian_jokes_here/
codifier@reddit
Didn't say I wasn't. Just pointed out he made a presumption based on prejudice. He doesn't know a thing about me
whubbard@reddit
https://old.reddit.com/user/codifier/submitted/
Scrolled for >3 seconds to find that photo, but sure, Super Creep.
Sorry you got called out, I hope it happens again.
codifier@reddit
I didn't say I wasn't, I noted you presumed and attributed some sort of privilege and no hardships based on nothing other than your own prejudices.
singlemale4cats@reddit
Mmm, no, I based it on your attitudes/posts, hobbies, and communication. You're not hard to see through.
hikehikebaby@reddit
Do you think it's unusual for people to be mocked or harassed in public? It isn't.
moving0target@reddit
A year or two ago, and transgender lady posted here and got...mistreated. Plenty of people are still comfortable doing that in public. A lot of people are still okay being racist and sexist, but most of them keep it to themselves.
Minimum-Web-6902@reddit
Crazy part is they kept posting regularly until people accepted them. And still post occasionally and there’s still hate just WAYYY less
justpackingheat1@reddit
Fucking Reagan.
irodragon20@reddit
I don't know a whole lot about Reagan just know he's done some stupid things. My grandfather loves him even though he's extremely pro gun. Do you mind listing off a few things Reagan did to show how bad he was? About all I know is the assault weapons ban and FOPA.
marksman1023@reddit
Do NOT say FOPA is a bad thing. Machine gun ban, yes, that was actually a poison pill designed to kill the bill.
If you think ATF and blue states are bad now dude go read up on what ATF was doing to gun owners and FFLs before FOPA.
NoobRaunfels@reddit
If you want to know why something sucks, you can answer “Reagan” without hearing any facts and have a 78% chance of being right
nukey18mon@reddit
Drinking age? Reagan. Machine gun ban? Reagan.
TranscendentSentinel@reddit
The economy...yes reagan
The economy 40 years later...yes reagan
ReasonablyRedacted@reddit
The machine gun ban is blatantly unconstitutional so it's always kind of ironic to me when some boomers go on about how amazing Reagan was. The drinking age, on the other hand, is just so unbelievably stupid.
Scientists believe that brain development and maturity doesn't reach it's peak until about the age of 25, so scientifically, 21 is too low. Then again, if you can be mandatorily pressed into service, against your will, during a draft but still not be able to legally drink, 21 is too high.
18 + 25 / 2 = 21.5, so did they actually just take the average of the two ages and then round down?
nukey18mon@reddit
Also the drinking age is laughable at how ineffective it is. Just go to any university.
So_Full_Of_Fail@reddit
Or military base.
Brazenassault456@reddit
Or literally anywhere besides Provo Utah
IamJewbaca@reddit
Boomers having all the money. You guessed it!
WiseDirt@reddit
Crack cocaine being introduced to inner city gangs and weapons being traded to Iran in exchange for a handful of hostages? I'll give you three guesses.
Friendly_Deathknight@reddit
And boomers love to shit on the pro gun Christian with the best debt to GDP ratio of any president since WWII.
nthn82@reddit
Carter?
Friendly_Deathknight@reddit
Yep. To the people downvoting you
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDGDPA188S
Applesauce7896@reddit
Who are you talking about?
Friendly_Deathknight@reddit
Carter
Unf8dbl@reddit
Frank Stallone.
BannedAgain-573@reddit
Lets aids ravage the nation without a word? Yep
FirstToken@reddit
To be fair, while the NMDA (National Minimum Drinking Age Act) was signed by Reagan (and championed by he and Nancy), the law was passed by Congress before his signature. So he does not carry all the blame. Indeed, the NMDA, even today, does not limit the drinking age, but rather limits the purchasing age to 21. Each state, even today, sets their own drinking age.
Historically, the drinking age in the US had been predominately 21 long before that Act. This was because most states accepted the voting age (21) as the legal drinking age. Before the 26th Amendment (lowering the voting age to 18) the vast majority of states had 21 as the drinking age. The ones that did not have 21 as the age had various ages, from 18 to 20. Only 4 states had the drinking age as 18 for everyone. Some states had different ages for men and woman, typically men were 20 or 21, while women might be 18. Some states allowed "3.2" beer for people under 21, requiring 21 or older for normal beer, wine, or liquor.
The 26th Amendment, lowering the voting age to 18, was adopted largely because the law said we could draft 18 year olds and send them off to war, but they could not vote on who was deciding we should be at war. And most states allowed (either officially or not) people with military IDs to drink even if under 21, regardless of the state drinking age.
After the 26th was adopted in 1971 various states started dropping the drinking age to 18, to match voting age. But, the trend was already moving back to an older purchase age before the NMDA was passed. In 1976 roughly half the states (up from the 4 states 5 years earlier) allowed 18 year olds to purchase, but by 1984, when the NMDA was passed into law, only 7 states allowed 18 year olds to purchase alcohol. The NMDA just nationalized a trend that was already well under weigh.
Pre Prohibition there were almost no drinking age laws, but post Prohibition there was really only about a 14 year period, 1970 to 1984, when some, not all, states allowed people under 21 to purchase alcohol.
Myte342@reddit
Is the other 22% FDR?
jdmgto@reddit
Woodrow Wilson
jdmgto@reddit
It's mind blowing how often you can ask, "Man, why is this screwed up?" Start following the trail and run right into the Gipper.
Any-Lingonberry-6720@reddit
Reagans "Trickle Down Economics" plan is what lit the fuse on the explosive wealth gap in America. Our current situation perfectly shows the money at the top, stays at the top......and i am a capitalism loving Libertarian. We have given preferential treatment to larger corporations that can afford lobbyists to alter policy
HapaSure@reddit
Closing of insane asylums in CA? Yep. Firing all of the air traffic controllers threatening to strike? Double yep.
moving0target@reddit
It's higher than that if you don't specify president or first lady.
gewehr44@reddit
He didn't impose it as an executive order, merely signed legislation that passed a bipartisan legislature.
pinesolthrowaway@reddit
Not to excuse Reagan, but blaming him alone is silly. It had three R sponsors and three D sponsors
It passed through a CA Senate that was evenly split, and passed through a D controlled CA Assembly
It was dog shit legislation to be sure, but it was overwhelmingly bi-partisan dog shit legislation
Redneck_SysAdmin@reddit
All people at fault are equally as guilty. Current gun control is based on racist and/or ignorant politicians.
Melkor7410@reddit
~~Current~~ All gun control is based on racist and/or ignorant politicians.
grey-doc@reddit
They aren't ignorant.
None of them are ignorant.
Brazenassault456@reddit
They know exactly what they're doing.
Although they are ignorant to particular gun facts, but not ignorant to the fact they don't care, they'll still spin a narrative regardless the facts.
grey-doc@reddit
Right. The predator doesn't care about the types of fur grown by its prey.
katsusan@reddit
In this case it wasn’t a rep vs dem issue. It was a white vs black issue.
Yttermayn@reddit
Citizens vs Government issue.
Disposedofhero@reddit
So you're saying they were racists too? Not exactly exonerating lol.
gewehr44@reddit
Yes agreed.
ptfc1975@reddit
It's OK to blame people who work together to do something bad.
gewehr44@reddit
Yes, another comment said 'not to absolve him' which is a good way to phrase it.
PaperbackWriter66@reddit
The CA Legislature passed the bill with a veto-proof bi-partisan majority.
Disposedofhero@reddit
Nixon and Reagan will be seen as the beginning of the End by historians. Franklin famously said we had a republic if we could keep it. We didn't, and now it's an oligarchy.
Averagecrabenjoyer69@reddit
Fucking Democratic majority legislature that sent it to Reagan.
Evilkymonkey_1977@reddit
This!!!!!
throwthisaway556_@reddit
Ironically the most conservative president was the worst gun grabber
daeather@reddit
Worst
Dependent-Edge-5713@reddit
Now they've pivoted to scaring soccer moms to pass gun control. We're doomed.
Redditor0529@reddit
All gun control is not about guns. They don't give a sht. Its about disarming and weakening an entire population, begining with black, brown and poor Americans.
Dependent-Edge-5713@reddit
"God created men equal, Col. Colt made them equal."
Drakpalong@reddit
I'm happy that the Left is coming around on the right to bear arms, but there is definitely some cognitive dissonance there. Because, while this is the genesis of CA's gun law regime, that regime is currently maintained exclusively by fear mongers on the left.
PisakasSukt@reddit
Democrats 👏 are 👏 not 👏 left-wing.
They're still right-wingers, they just pay lip service to some progressive causes. The people you call leftists because you think it's an insult and the people who call themselves leftists are not the same people.
Dubaku@reddit
It will never not be funny to me to watch commies try and explain how they're different from the dems to people that don't care. They still hate both of those groups, the terms you use to describe yourself don't matter to them.
PisakasSukt@reddit
Yeah. It's a waste of time and honestly the biggest reason we're going to lose all of our gun rights. Like, Mao taking away gun rights is bad but Reagan taking them is good.
When guns are banned entirely the majority of this sub will lick boots and turn theirs in. They'll still shit talk North Korea and China but won't acknowledge their own boot-licking because the people telling them to surrender their guns are capitalists and therefore good. We're doomed. Like, the entire planet is doomed because everyone will be okay disarming because the bourgeoisie told them to, Conservatives and Shit-libs alike.
shadowcat999@reddit
According to theory, you're right. But when you think about it the whole concept of left and right is kind of ridiculous to begin with. Idk why everyone has to try shoehorn extremely complex topics involving philosophy and economics on a simplistic spectrum based on hierarchies that was originally coined for what side of the building people would sit during revolutionary era French national assembly.
At this point, to the general public, left and right are just meaningless slurs to denigrate the opposing side in the grand shit show of tribalism. Ask the average person what is left or right are, they won't have a coherent answer, and it will change depending on whatever is the current trend with their political team. Eg, during the Bush era isolationism was considered "left wing" and wrong think in GOP circles. Now it's considered "right wing" and correct. Imho the whole concept has outlived it's usefulness by a couple centuries.
alexmikli@reddit
Left and right is relative. I mean, the original left were constitutionalist liberals vs absolute monarchists, with the far left being republican liberals. The far left in Saudi Arabia thinks you shouldn't beat your wife so much, the far right in North Korea thinks people should be able to cut their hair however they want.
Leftists calling Liberals right wing or Conservatives calling Liberals Communists is just nonsense. The main parties in the US are center-right and center-left, with further left and further right wings in each party. Both are liberal democratic parties.
DrunkenArmadillo@reddit
Disagree that both parties are liberal. They are both progressive, with opposing ideas of what progress means. Progressiveness depends on trampling on civil rights in order to mold society into the form you think it should be. It is the opposite of liberal.
alexmikli@reddit
Liberal in this context meaning in favor of a democrat Capitalist State. Not a value judgement or anything, just not in favor of a dictatorship or wacky economic system.
DrunkenArmadillo@reddit
I would say that those things stem from civil rights, which is the ultimate source of liberalism, but fair enough.
Averagecrabenjoyer69@reddit
I wish they were moderate right wingers, more socially conservative but economically liberal. However on the American political spectrum they are definitely not right wing except maybe economically in some aspects. Quit comparing us to other countries political spectrum, "but in the UK system they're still right wing!" So?? We're not in the UK nor go by their political spectrum.
unseatedjvta@reddit
Why are they right wing now? Because of the massive L they took last election, like how Maduro is now capitalist in the eyes of the Brazilian press after taking an L?
But yeah, someone who thinks, acts and speaks just like a leftist is not a leftist because reasons
Just take the L and move on, the mental gymnastics only makes it worse
Sam-handwiches@reddit
This is an interesting perspective to see on this sub. I have been called a leftist and felt slighted by it. Not because I think it's an insult, but because they do.
Rich-Promise-79@reddit
If that isn’t the fucking truth
Drakpalong@reddit
I don't think it is an insult. I am a frequent contributor in subs like Socialist RA and Stupidpol. See my response to Noobraunfels above.
Also - is your name a reference to the flesh eating demons in indic lore?
TaskForceD00mer@reddit
I'm concerned because a loud minority of the left openly admit they just want firearms long enough to disarm their political enemies.
If only people realized how polite the Government would need to be if all of us were armed.
TryShootingBetter@reddit
Idk if they are. They're too busy blaming gun owners for school shooting still.
fenderc1@reddit
One of my friends who is pretty hardcore left is very much like this. Sees zero benefit of owning a gun for protection and definitely does not think there will ever be a situation where people will need to stand together to fight as civilians.
Her and her husband just bought a house in a relatively up and coming area, and has already told her husband he better not think about buying a gun now to protect them at home.
A perfect example of someone who's been turned because the media pushes false information regarding school shootings. Plus she works with the mentally ill which certainly doesn't help her beliefs that people shouldn't have access to guns.
I don't even think a situation where like her home is broken into while there home would change her mind that they need a gun for protection would change her mind.
The closest I got to her being gun friendly was her asking to teach her how to shoot because she was afraid the 1st time Trump came into office that she was going to be in danger lol.
alexmikli@reddit
It does show that the people who push gun control can change political alignment over time. There's constantly Republicans who pull the rug out under people, so some vigiliance is necessary even with "safe" parties.
lethalmuffin877@reddit
Gun control is akin to neutering oneself to stop SA
tghost474@reddit
LMAO if you really do believe that, what kind of hubba stank are you smoking and where can a New Hampshire resident legally procure such?
Drakpalong@reddit
If you disagree with how the Black Panthers used guns, what is the correct way? Just hunting?
twotokers@reddit
The left has always been pro gun ownership. It’s the liberals who fight it tooth and nail.
alexmikli@reddit
It kinda depends on what era we're talking about. The current anti gun thing is recent worldwide from like the 1950s onwards, and of course any dictatorship, left or right, seizes guns immediately. The Liberals of the 18th and early 19th century were absolutely not anti-gun, after all.
Cosmohumanist@reddit
Well said
NoobRaunfels@reddit
The same way conservatives are not the same as alt-right/kkk/Nazis, it is worth distinguishing democrats (the anti-gun blamers), from leftists, who skew pro-gun and fucking hate democrats.
Drakpalong@reddit
I wish that were more true. I'm a frequent contributor on Socialist RA and they often make anti-gun arguments. I even started a post commenting on how, if we got a more economically leftist government, we'd likely lose some of our gun rights, and it was disappointing how many responses were basically just "well, i dont actually care. I just joined Socialist RA bc I think that minorities should carry guns until identitarian dems get federal power again".
I'm also a contributor on some subs that most leftists would consider 'class-reductionist', such as stupidpol , and they are more consistently pro gun rights. But the anti-idpol left is a much smaller portion of the left than the identitarians and essentialists, who seem to be dominant in basically every space, and who are, ultimately, anti gun.
Skinnybonz@reddit
The main cause of the issue in which everyone is lumped together is a result of us only having two political parties, makes it so that normal people get associated with extremists.
Drakpalong@reddit
That definitely plays a large part. But if you look at the polling for increased gun control, the number overall is something like 50-60%. The GOP voter numbers are south of 20%. The inevitable conclusion is that the vast vast majority of non-GOP voters are anti-gun, and would agree with that famous Beto O'Rourke quote in the primaries about "Hell yes, we're coming to take your AR-15s and AK-47s".
IamJewbaca@reddit
Are you saying modern Republicans didn’t shove through Federal gun restrictions? Plenty of fear mongering during the Trump years. Or do we just ignore bump stocks and the “take guns first and worry about due process later” comments?
Drakpalong@reddit
Oh definitely. The NRA also played a part in the bump stocks ban as well.
Sabre_Actual@reddit
Lmao we’re really just cross posting commies now huh
SaintEyegor@reddit
Except that real Marxists take your guns
CxsChaos@reddit
but ReAL MarXism HAS NEVER Been Done before! /s
StayStrong888@reddit
Ronald Reagan changed the law on open loaded carry when the Black Panther Party marched on Sacramento with loaded shotguns.
P0RTERHAUS@reddit
Has anybody in this thread read Marx or are we all just getting mad at each other over what we imagine he probably wrote about?
Like the Marx bashing, ok whatever, a lot of the hatred surrounding Marx in particular starts by deliberately obfuscating his philosophy. Most people who hate Hitler wouldn't read Mein Kampf, and a lot of people have the impression that Marx is like Hitler. Not really your fault.
But the people in this thread attempting to defend Marxist concepts like "private property" don't appear to know what that is either and are getting in really dumb arguments that piss everybody off.
Marx's whole thing, as a philosopher and the godfather of modern sociology, was simply observing and describing socio-economic dynamics present at the time of Western industrialization. The bulk of his work is putting names to things and describing what they do. A lot of the bad shit he gets blamed for comes from bullshit the Soviets pulled decades later, against the wishes of many of the Soviet leaders themselves.
Even if you don't agree with his conclusions, I'd really suggest learning about Kapital, where Marx just objectively lays out all the features of Capitalism as it was developing. Even just a YouTube video or something. At the very least It's important to understand the philosophy of that which you oppose, directly from the source. And you'd be familiar with the work of the most influential philosopher of the last 200 years, which is a feather in your cap.
Learning is fun and cool, even when it's about shitheads you hate.
malica83@reddit
Thank Regan
hitokiriknight@reddit
Which party and leaders were in power during this?
Mogetfog@reddit
Ronald Regan was the one who instituted California open carry laws as we know them today, and yes, it was during the height of the Civil rights movement after black protestores started legally open carrying firearms for protection.
PaperbackWriter66@reddit
I'm sure the Democrats got rid of Reagan's laws once they gained complete control of the legislature and governor's mansion, right?
ApprehensiveAct9036@reddit
Totally appreciate the point on how neither party really wants to defend peoples' right to bear, but for the record they (D) already had the slim majorities with 21/40 Senate seats and 42/80 Assembly seats. Essentially this is America's most bipartisan legislation in history! Huzzah?
PaperbackWriter66@reddit
Why are we focusing on one law which is 60 years old instead of the dozens of gun laws California's legislature has passed in just the past 10?
ApprehensiveAct9036@reddit
Exclusively because of the subject video and how foundational it is. Don't get me wrong, things have definitely gotten exponentially worse since.
JefftheBaptist@reddit
This is at best a half truth. The law was changed after the Black Panthers started having armed demonstrations at the State Capitol. This freaked out a lot of politicians of both parties.
thecftbl@reddit
Ronald Reagan, aka the father of modern gun control.
gewehr44@reddit
Modern gun control started way before Reagan. I would put it at NY's Sullivan Act in 1911. They didn't like the greasy wops or other recent immigrants to have guns.
thecftbl@reddit
There was a massive gap in restrictive gun legislation from the creation of the NFA to Reagan's policies. Everything we currently associate with gun control now all stemmed from the Reagan's California policies and subsequent national acts like the Brady bill.
Demonae@reddit
14 year old cake is still relevant
Gyp2151@reddit
It was a bipartisan bill, named for the republican who drafted it, cosponsored by an equal number of democrats and republicans, and passed a dem controlled committee and house (with a veto proof vote). People like to put it at the feet of Reagan though.
SomeIdioticDude@reddit
He could have sent it back to the legislature and made them override the veto if he were the least bit concerned about having the bill tied to his legacy
Gyp2151@reddit
He wasn’t… he didn’t want minorities armed, and was a racist. But it wasn’t his bill, and it passed multiple stages of the California legislative process that were extensively controlled by democrats. Pointing the finger exclusively at Reagan is skipping over 3/4 of how the bill passed, and who was at fault.
pablobuela@reddit
The law was literally named after a Republican. Mulford act.
Somterink@reddit
Think it was Reagan
AKsuperslay@reddit
Republicans specifically reagan
Dubaku@reddit
Everyone should own guns but commies can get fucked.
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
Marxist culture is gun control.
They know they need guns in order to force socialism on people, they DO NOT support the 2A as a right. They support it as a privilege for those that support them.
Look at every time a socialist government takes power, the next step is confiscating the guns because "We won comrade, you don't need that anymore, what are you going to do fight the revolution? You wouldn't be a traitor to the workers now would you?" *Builds Gulag*
Here's when they went full mask-off
Marx was pro-force. Please read the FULL AND COMPLETE quote. Because fucking commies are disingenuous as all fuck and never post it.
Read the first fucking sentence. It's not about self defense, it's not about protecting yourself. It's about forcefully and threateningly using the guns against people who do not wish to submit to communism.
Marx saw guns as a means to an end, nothing more. Same as SRA. They are not our friends, they are not to be trusted.
Don't listen to their bullshit, they are not our friends.
Dubaku@reddit
This is what I keep trying to tell people. When ever they say "worker" they mean commie. And they see anyone who isn't a commie as an enemy.
PaperbackWriter66@reddit
Thank you. The gaslighting about Reagan and Marxists every time this topic comes up is frustrating to no end.
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
And that's why we need to call it out, every fucking time.
Reagan was a Fudd, this is true. But Marxists are explicitly anti-2A. Because they are anti-Individual Rights.
They do not believe individuals have rights, only the collective.
PaperbackWriter66@reddit
Yeah, Reagan was a fudd, but he was a relatively pro-gun fudd for his day and age. And don't even get me started about how people give him shit about FOPA.
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
The FOPA did far more good than harm. Imagine a world where the "Safe passage" provision doesn't exist and NY can effectively make it illegal to ship non-compliant firearms through their borders? Imagine the ATF having an ammunition registry.
The Hughes Amendment sucks ass, it does. But it was added as a poison pill (by an uncertain voice vote despite a recorded vote being demanded). The Dems were hoping the Hughes would kill the whole bill.
Do I support the Hughes amendment? Absolutely not. Do I think it would be worth it to scrap the whole of the FOPA to undo it? Also no.
PaperbackWriter66@reddit
Hear hear. I need to have this saved as a copy pasta to spam at idiots who have never actually looked at what FOPA did.
KravenArk_Personal@reddit
This is where I disagree so much with left wing parties.
The right to bear arms is critical to race and gender equality. Armed minorities are harder to oppress
buttersidedown801@reddit
This is why reagan changed gun laws in California.
PaperbackWriter66@reddit
Good thing the Democrats unchanged the laws after they had unchallenged power in California for 60 years after Reagan left office. Right?
ChaosRainbow23@reddit
Just like with many of our most ridiculous laws, it's rooted in racism.
Same with the failed drug war.
Psychological_Dot613@reddit
Gun Rights are Civil Rights
SignificantCell218@reddit
An armed minority is hard to oppress. It's a damn shame everybody has pushed the victimhood mentality. Every American should have the opportunity to exercise their second amendment rights. Everybody has a right to not be a victim. Thanks Reagan for screwing over gun rights. And FYI, I know Reagan's not the only one but the disarmament of the Black Panthers happened under his watch
moving0target@reddit
2nd Amendment rights for all. 🏳️🌈
lethalmuffin877@reddit
Usually when I see that emoji the statement isn’t very based, but in this context it’s supa based 😎
moving0target@reddit
I'm not a minority in any category, but I'm an advocate. People threatened by having a lesser voice should take every advantage to be sure they aren't silenced. Cheers.
lethalmuffin877@reddit
Couldn’t agree more, the tragedy I’ve seen over the past few years is the politicians using the community as a sword and shield to play games.
And sadly too many in the community aren’t parsing that out, assuming that politicians are “on their side” when in reality it’s all manipulation.
Bottom line tho, there’s a lot more support/advocacy for LGBT folks than people may realize.
grugmug889@reddit
Hell yeah
lethalmuffin877@reddit
Amen, and it’s the reason massive militaries have incredibly bad stats when going up against them.
See: Ukraine, Afghanistan, Vietnam
Biden loves to say that an armed American population can’t do anything against jets and tanks, but those vehicles are manned by humans. And if you don’t know who or where your enemy is, especially when they’re mixed in with innocents… those advanced weapons are useless.
And the government knows it very goddamn well.
mwmwmwmwmmdw@reddit
the importance of strength in numbers always gets overlooks in this quote. an armed minority on their own just gets lit up like a Christmas tree by the state
Cosmohumanist@reddit
💯💯💯
Pyrokitsune@reddit
Gun control is racist and classist
In other news:
Sky is blue
Grass is green
Redneck_SysAdmin@reddit
The left keeps touting systemic racism. The only actual systemic racism is gun control as it started by disarming armed black citizens protecting their community
hyndsightis2020@reddit
Literally the intended purpose of the second amendment. If only people realized this and utilized it accordingly, and if only the held politicians accountable (such as Regan) who only support things until they personally get uncomfortable. The government is supposed to fear its populace, that’s what stops them from doing crazy shit like federal entrapment and blanket surveillance.
Calibased@reddit
Love how theatrical this clip is haha. But yes. They banned loaded open carry in California because colored people started doing it. NRA backed it too.
cryptidhunter101@reddit
At what could be said was a height in police brutality post Jim Crow, the black communities and even gangs joined forces in opposition to the state. With literal militias they sent their message but the government couldn't have their monopoly and status quo jeopardized so they enacted gun legislation. Now our dog sweats his nuts off everytime we take a braced pistol out of the safe.
afrika210@reddit
Just this clip made me find the movie and turn it on. I was born in '95, but I honestly believe I would have did my damndest to join if that was my time.
TrapPanther@reddit
This is why I will never give up my ZPAP M70 as long as I live in America
TickTick_b00m@reddit
Only time the NRA was for strict gun control was when black folks started buying them back during the civil rights movement, particularly when the Black Panthers started arming up against the cops. Wild.
tghost474@reddit
That’s not true they’ve been for gun bans as far back as the NFA
tghost474@reddit
That’s not true they’ve been for gun bans as far back as the NFA
Pheren@reddit
We need another group like the black panthers. All my life I was taught they were a terrorist group and what do I learn when I finally grow a brain of my own? That they were the best damn 'paramilitary' group to ever exist.
tghost474@reddit
That’s like saying we need another group like the Ku Klux Klan if you’ve ever actually talked to a member of the black panther party they’re not exactly known for tolerant beliefs of non blacks. Maybe do your research before saying stupid shit.
SamDiep@reddit
They werent a "terrorist group" .. they were a street gang who masked their criminal activities as community activist. Their leader was killed by a rival gang member because he tried to shake him down for free crack cocaine. The same leader who murdered a hooker because she called him "baby" and had the co-founder of the group anally raped with a bullwhip because he got more attention in film script about the group.
javanperl@reddit
They also implemented social programs like a school breakfast programs, free medical clinics, community ambulance services, and legal clinics.
Every_Expression_455@reddit
I know liberals still taking them today
Pappa_Crim@reddit
And this is why the M1 xarbine is banned by name in several states
ThatPunkGinger@reddit
What movie is this from? I assume its about the black panthers
BridgeTroll67@reddit
Panther. Released in ‘95 but has Bokeem Woodbine who also did Dead Presidents the same year.
Neither-Following-32@reddit
He was also Shocker in the MCU, to bring it (sort of) full circle to the parent comment.
Bubbacarl@reddit
Which is a damn fine movie
Cosmohumanist@reddit
One of the classics
Exotic_Conclusion_21@reddit
Marvel: the black panther
IamJewbaca@reddit
Michael B Jordan looks really good with that mustache.
N3Chaos@reddit
Real question, was that Morgan Freeman in the crowd? And if so, has he always looked old?
shadowcat999@reddit
Morgan Freeman being born old and calling his Dad "son" will forever live rent free in my head.
Neither-Following-32@reddit
What movie is this?
ImCaffeinated_Chris@reddit
Is that really 22 feet? 🤣
PuG3_14@reddit
The way he says “it is now!” Lmao. An unarmed phboic is way easier to control. Look whats happening in Europe(UK?), they putting people in jail for literal online memes.
GutterFox737@reddit
Hell yeah
Nervous-Glove-@reddit
Also, some gun laws after the Civil War were aimed at preventing former slaves from owning guns.
Torch99999@reddit
Concealed carry was illegal in Texas for close to 100 years because yankee carpetbaggers were scared of southerners.
The specific situation in Texas wasn't explicitly racist, but I wouldn't be surprised if racism motivated a lot of others.
Give-Me-Liberty1775@reddit
OP posts this to get people to fight over “ism” (communism vs capitalism), instead of focusing on the point - an armed society is a polite society, one where the “powers that be” respect the public because of obvious reasons.
You don’t t have to be a black panther to figure that out…
Historical_Truth2578@reddit
As a minority, this is why my 2nd amendment rights are so important to me, because at a time of history there were those whose stomach turned at the thought of me having a gun solely because of my skin color, and that's a better reason of any to stay armed
SamDiep@reddit
Because street gangs dressed up as community activist were killing police officers?
smax70@reddit
That came from Marxist Culture? WTF does that have to do with Marxism?! 😂🤣😂
Pap4MnkyB4by@reddit
Ain't no minority more safe than an armed minority.
T33-_-@reddit
Yeah I remember learning about this.. Not in school but I took it upon myself to learn about the parts of black history they didn’t teach in school and I stumbled upon this. I even watched this film, changed my perspective on a lot of things as well.
EnvironmentBright697@reddit
I’ve often seen it speculated that the guns banned here in Canada with bill C-17 in 1991 was due to the Oka crisis, where the Mohawk tribe was standing up to the government to prevent the development of a golf course on their ancestral homeland that included a burial ground. They were often seen with norinco Type 56’s in woodland camo. Officially, it was in response to the Montreal massacre, but I think the theory may have some validity to it, especially considering all AK pattern rifles were banned but the Mini-14 was not.
No-Put-2253@reddit
Fuck marxism, and the horse they rode in on. Also I support these dudes, who were just looking out for there freedoms and everything I saw here. F the oathbreakers.
sendgarlicpics@reddit
The Black Panther Party is Marxist
muke641@reddit
you can support the people and not the movement
katsusan@reddit
Is this why TikTok is getting banned?
06210311200805012006@reddit
Based take, IDGAF what your politics are, you must recognize that this is how it went down and who is responsible.
TheCarm@reddit
This makes me proud to be an American
Random_modnaR420@reddit
Guns are for all shapes, sizes, colors, sexual preference etc. Armed minorities are harder to oppress
uninsane@reddit
That actor is either Tank or Dozer from the matrix.
DonLotto92k@reddit
This is a factual statement
jfm111162@reddit
Actually It was the 1968 GCA signed by Lyndon Johnson that got the ball rolling and it was race based legislation because they were uncomfortable with black people owning firearms
Fit-Paper-797@reddit
They are so close to getting
Abuck59@reddit
For those confused or falling into the Reddit w.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
Killerjebi@reddit
Scroll that sub for a little bit 🧐
theslimreaper2@reddit
Mulford Act
blankford@reddit
Hey that’s Tank from The Matrix
skoz2008@reddit
I was wondering why he looked familiar
public_masticator@reddit
ALL GUN CONTROL IS RACIST
Friendly_Deathknight@reddit
Yessir.
Friendly_Deathknight@reddit
Based
No-Put-2253@reddit
All gun control is racist
the_hat_madder@reddit
Because of the 1995 film Panther starring Kadeem Hardison and Marcus Chong?
Eh, I doubt many Californian legislators watched the film or were moved by it if they did.
MoneyMik3y@reddit
Mulford Act.
WTFisThatSMell@reddit
Then thier boy Ronald regan signed the Mumford act.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
Rest in pee pee ya dementia ridden fart knocker. I hope the founding fathers gave you a serious ass chewing. Especially for the your over stepping including the signing the 1986 FOPA into Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
GodZ_Rs@reddit
"Tyrants", the ones with a Napoleon complex, LOVE ignorance and love exploiting it. Arm yourself with firearms and knowledge, not for your ego or exploitative reasons, but to better prepare for WHEN those who are meant to protect you fail to do so.